Conversation

Notices

1. Owl (lonelyowl@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 19:56:56 JST Owl
   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
   
   I remember reading this article when I was younger, and even then it struck me as something controversial.
   You can't defend freedom with anti-freedom tools, you can't fight fire with fire. Your desire to keep copyleft turns you into a corporate supporter :thinking:
   • Machismo repeated this.
   • Owl (lonelyowl@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 19:59:30 JST Owl

     in reply to
     Copyright is a computer fascism, copyleft is a computer communism and the permissive licenses are computer libertarianism 😀
   • teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 20:02:28 JST teknomunk

     in reply to
     @lonelyowl
     
     Patch the platform and push to make copyleft something explicitly enshrined in law like copyright currently is.
     
     :02_shrug:
   • Owl (lonelyowl@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 20:58:48 JST Owl

     in reply to

     • teknomunk
     @teknomunk
     
     E.g. copyright expires after N years, copyleft lasts forever or so. Okay, that sounds reasonable, although it does give off a double standard :thonk:
     Machismo repeated this.
   • teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 20:58:48 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • teknomunk
     I don't think so, anymore than public domain is a double standard, because they are two separate, but related things.
     
     There should obviously be restriction on copyleft to prevent abuse, but the big thing is that a work put under copyleft should be forever in copyleft (like public domain), but that derivative works are *ALSO* forced into copyleft, with no prohibitions on commercial use. This is different than public domain, where derivative works are not forced to also be public domain.
     
     In my opinion, copyleft better serves the copyright clause in the US Constitution "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", better than copyright does.
     
     The actual mechanics of making such a law are better suited to people with extensive experience with both copyleft and law.
   • teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 20:58:49 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • teknomunk
     Copyleft is currently a very clever hack of copyright, and thus is dependent on the continued existence of (and perpetual expansion of ) copyright terms.
     
     If copyright had its own section of law, then copyright could be modified without adversely affecting copyleft.
     
     But as you point out, the corporations like this state of affairs, because it gives them a convenient club to beat people that would otherwise support revisions to copyright with.
     
     :TiredTalulah:
   • Owl (lonelyowl@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 27-Nov-2023 20:58:50 JST Owl

     in reply to

     • teknomunk
     @teknomunk
     
     It is already enshrined at the same level as copyright, because it uses the same logical basis "the author of the work can dictate what you can and cannot do".
     If a corpo is caught using copylefted code in a non-free project, they will face legal consequences.
     
     But corpos actually benefit more from this situation, as most of the software is nonfree, plus they have endless money to spend on lawyers, unlike free software people.